In a comment on my recent blog regarding the equity risk premium, “Le gun” asked for a guide to making long-term investment decisions and I promised to try.

In 2009 TengTeng Xu and I addressed this issue in a paper called “Investment and Spending Strategies for Endowments”. We were specific because the need for income and the investor’s time horizon should both be taken into account when deciding on a sensible policy for individual investors. We considered the use of only three asset classes: equities, long-dated bonds and short-term deposits (cash). We did not include property because we were unable to find suitable long-term data and dismissed commodities, including gold, as combining poor returns with high volatility. With regard to the possible portfolios, we came to several conclusions which I will adapt here for all long-term investors, rather than just endowments. Read more

I assume and hope that Scotland will vote to maintain the union on September 18. I am, however, sceptical of the barrage of claims that Scotland will either be necessarily better or worse off if a majority vote “Yes”.

Countries have grown at hugely different rates in the past. Chart one (below) shows the relative growth rates in terms of gross domestic product per head of Ghana and South Korea. In 1950, when the data series starts, the standard of living of Ghanians was 30 per cent higher than those in South Korea, but the latter were ahead by 1965 and, by 2008, when the data series ends, had living standards twelve times higher.

 Read more

The gross domestic product data for the second quarter of 2014 showed that the US economy bounced back strongly, and with enough vim to justify the view that its first quarter weakness was largely due to bad weather.

However, the productivity figures provided another bad surprise. In the first quarter GDP per hour worked fell, and it would therefore have been reasonable to expect it to improve with the sharp recovery shown in the second quarter. In fact, there was another fall.

 Read more

Ed Balls, who has a high chance of being the UK’s next chancellor of the exchequer, has announced that the opposition Labour party is “examining the case for introducing an allowance for corporate equity, to redress the systemic bias in favour of debt finance”. This would be very sensible, but it needs to be done sensibly.

Allowing interest as a deduction before calculating the profit on which corporation tax should be paid encourages excessive debt, buybacks of equity in preference to long-term investment and debt-financed takeovers. The views of economists on its undesirability are one of the few instances on which they are almost all agreed. It is one of the rare exceptions to the old rule that “n economists = n+1 opinions”. Read more

The UK has a seriously unbalanced economy, with little spare capacity and a slow trend rate of growth. To correct its imbalances, the current account deficit and the cash flow surpluses of the corporate sector need to fall. This would permit a fall in the fiscal deficit, but requires a fall in the real exchange rate and in the share of consumption in gross domestic product.

The fall in the trend rate of economic growth comes from a combination of a slower growth in the population of working age and a drop in productivityRead more

In some of my more gamesome moments I have challenged my students to produce an article about the equity risk premium, which made a useful contribution to our understanding of the way financial markets work. So far the challenge has not been met. This may reflect the modesty and good manners of those I teach but also, I hope and believe, the fact they are too sensible to wish to defend the way this often ill-defined and generally useless concept has been habitually discussed. In practice, comments on the ERP seem to me to have been a source of confusion and error rather than illumination.

The ERP can be defined in at least two ways. One is the historic difference between the returns on bonds and equities and another is the expected difference in these returns. Alternatively, the “risk-free rate” can be used in place of bonds. Read more

A few weeks ago, I promised to write about claims that the stock market could be valued by comparing earnings yields to bond yields. This approach is sometimes called the “Fed model”. This was fashionable in the 1990s and seems to have some followers even today. It is not only nonsense but is the most egregious piece of “data mining” that I have encountered in the 60-plus years I have been studying financial marketsRead more

Competition is essential if capitalism is to work well for the benefit of the consumers and the economy in general. It is, however, much disliked, notably by businessmen and trade unionists. The present system of management remuneration has very similar impacts on the economy as a decline in competition. Companies have a great deal of short-term monopoly power and chief executives are encouraged by their pay packages to exploit this more aggressively than they used to do. The result is a rise in profit margins, a fall in investment and productivity and a structural savings’ surplus in the business sector, which is the corollary of the structural fiscal deficits of the UK and the US.

I would like to see the damage done to our economies by these perverse incentives understood and the system changed. I was therefore pleased to contribute to a booklet published by the Trades Union Congress on the need for reform (though I pleaded in vain for its title, “Beyond Shareholder Value”, to be changed). As the author of one of the chapters I was asked to participate in a discussion organised for its launch. Read more

In the past governments have funded their deficits – for example, they have borrowed in the bond market rather than through treasury bills. This is despite the fact that, for the past 80 years, the rate of interest on bonds has been greater than that on Treasury bills; that is, we have had an upward sloping yield curve.

I suggested in a recent blog that this was because governments correctly perceived that there were considerable economic risks in not funding, and that it was worth paying the additional cost to avoid these risks. Quantitative easing, which is a form of underfunding, must therefore have increased these risks. Defenders of QE need either to argue that these risks have not risen or that the benefits we have received from QE outweigh the rise in risks. To be consistent, those who hold that no additional risks have been incurred must now hold that governments should not have funded in the past and must now stop. But their silence is deafening, and such views are implausible, being held, I think, in the hope of dissuading discussion rather than from any conviction that they would survive much debate. Read more

While it is sometimes useful to make a distinction between treasuries and central banks, they are fundamentally both part of government. When central banks buy bonds as part of quantitative easing, governments are in practice ceasing to fund, ie, they are issuing short-term rather than long-term debt. If this is potentially harmful, we need to worry; if not, we need to ask why have governments funded in the past? Read more